Scyld Berry: Indian cricket plots control of world game

[jairamesh]

David Morgan, the last ICC president, added: “I think the ICC has been well served by fixed-term presidencies. The dangers that arise from open-ended terms of office are well known.”

This piece is riddled with so many holes. Let's see these fixed-term presidencies, presided over the decline of West Indies, let corruption run rife in cricket, screwed-up a successful WC format after 1996 with silly "super" chaka group, gave us shambles of World Cup 2007, could the WC 2007 final be any more embarrassing for a showpiece event of ICC, only two nations admitted to Test status since SL in 1982, nearly destroying one of them (Zim), by isolating their cricket due to Anglo-Australian political interference, unable to generate revenue outside Indian market, infact blinded by Indian money, the list is endless. I think having Sharad Pawar or an Indian as long term president for ICC will help ICC expand faster and make decision making more efficient. Yes, alot of decision will be India-centric, and hopefully experience gained by these guys turning BCCI into revenue generating juggernaut, will be applied to ICC and the global game.

[Ultimate_Game]

14 teams were too many imo. 12 is what I'd go for personally.

I would go with 15 teams in 3 groups - 5 teams in a group. Top 2 move to the Super 6s stage with points carried forward. This will ensure every match counts, not many one-sided games as the minnows are distributed across the groups and lastly minnows get plenty of exposure.

[jairamesh]

^^^^ Michael Vaughan and England should be the last ones to moan about adding minnows. They are the ones who nearly lost to Netherlands and lost to Ireland and B'desh so how the hell can they say there should only be 10 teams around?

Exactly. But even regardless of them nearly losing to the associates. I am surprised the British press doesn't support the inclusion and promotion of associates. Because I always had the UK press as authority on moralistic viewpoints and promoter of equal opportunities/rights. Maybe sports journalism is blinded by nationalistic jingoism, which makes you blind even to positive intentions.

[Ultimate_Game]

Exactly. But even regardless of them nearly losing to the associates. I am surprised the British press doesn't support the inclusion and promotion of associates. Because I always had the UK press as authority on moralistic viewpoints and promoter of equal opportunities/rights. Maybe sports journalism is blinded by nationalistic jingoism, which makes you blind even to positive intentions.

That's the amazing part... if BCCI had voted for 10 teams the same English folks would have bagged India for booting out associates from intl cricket and when BCCI has done the right thing and trying to make sure world cup is more representative the same folks are saying BCCI runs cricket. I guess for them BCCI needs to be opposed no matter what - they are fighting the person/entiry (BCCI) and not the argument.

[phaedrus]

oh man, how they moan. we are the new australia, arent we?

[Vijay.Sharma]

I am not sure about that anymore. There is an article on cricinfo right now that says SL just cut the cost of their series agianst Aus from 2.3 million $ to 800,000$ because they are expecting only 1.15 million $ in revenue.The cost of implementing DRS is 60,000 $ per game and even if they implement it just for the test series, that alone is around 15% of their revenue and this is Aus, the only country SL has some kinda enmity against. Most boards are bankrupt as it is. Would they really implement this? Having said that India not agreeing when the other boards are willing esp since the other boards are the one to pay, says something else is going on. Why is the BCCI so concerned about the costs if WI is picking up the tab?

Oh no, my dear, that is not the case. The finances work like this - If UDRS is made compulsory then ICC will bear the cost. Where does ICC get the money from? ICC gets its funds from the member Boards and distributes its money to the member Boards equally even though the earning pattern is not equal. BCCI allows this injustice to happen. To explain this further consider the exaple below. ICC earns Rs. 100/- annually. From this Rs.100/- India contributes Rs.70/-. At the end of the year ICC says let us divide 80% of the revenue among all the member boards, allocate 10% to non member boards and 10% to future development. So, each of Aus, Ban, Eng, Ind, NZ, Pak, SA, SL, WI, and Zim get Rs.8/- as earning. In other words BCCI is quite literally feeding and keeping alive at least 6 more boards than itself. If we go with the logic of of 'you take as much as you bring' then BCCI must get 70% of Rs 80 which is about Rs.56/- but BCCI takes only Rs.8/- and gives away Rs.48/- to feed 6 other Boards Now if ICC makes UDRS mandatory then the cost must be borne by ICC. This cost may come from the 10% allocated to Associates or the 10% allocated to future dev or from the 80% allocated as annual revenue sharing. Let's consider the UDRS cost is Rs 25/- and ICC sez it will cut Rs 5/- from Associates, Rs 5/- from Future Dev and Rs 15/- from revenue sharing. This means revenue sharing is now Rs 65/-. So, each member Board gets to take home Rs6.50/- at the end of the year. BCCI will continue to take home only Rs.6.5/- and also feed Rs.39/- to take care of 6 other boards. Essentially, BCCI ends up paying for the UDRS implementation in all countries. So, BCCI's stance is very understandable. Per them, "we are already feeding 6 boards and sponsoring their cricket for all practical reasons. Now you want us to bear the UDRS costs also for them?" People don't understand that BCCI is literally feeding at least 6 boards without which cricket cannot be played in those countries. However, if they go with a rule that let the boards decide amongst themselves if they wanna use UDRS or not, then apart from ECB, CA, BCCI, and to an extent CSA may be able to afford it on a long term basis. Give another 5-6 years and possibly only BCCI will be able to afford it. BCCI is very much within its rights to stand up and say, "I am not going to bear your costs. I am already keeping alive 6 of you and I am not interested in picking up the cheque for the UDRS as well." I think the BCCI should say make UDRS compulsory and let the boards playing the series pick up the cheque equally. Then it will show the world how many of these boards can actually pick up the costs for UDRS. I will bet that WI, Ban, SL, Pak, Zim, and NZ will not use UDRS in more than one series. Aus, Eng, and SA will not use it in more than 2 series per year from the year 2012.

[Dayman]

India provides most of the revenue. India provides most of the viewers. So why SHOULDN'T India have most of the power?

[phaedrus]

This piece is riddled with so many holes. Let's see these fixed-term presidencies, presided over the decline of West Indies, let corruption run rife in cricket, screwed-up a successful WC format after 1996 with silly "super" chaka group, gave us shambles of World Cup 2007, could the WC 2007 final be any more embarrassing for a showpiece event of ICC, only two nations admitted to Test status since SL in 1982, nearly destroying one of them (Zim), by isolating their cricket due to Anglo-Australian political interference, unable to generate revenue outside Indian market, infact blinded by Indian money, the list is endless. I think having Sharad Pawar or an Indian as long term president for ICC will help ICC expand faster and make decision making more efficient. Yes, alot of decision will be India-centric, and hopefully experience gained by these guys turning BCCI into revenue generating juggernaut, will be applied to ICC and the global game.

good post mate

[Midfielder]

Where were these morons when England openly helped countries with apartheid. Plain jealous.

[achilles]

I am not sure about that anymore. There is an article on cricinfo right now that says SL just cut the cost of their series agianst Aus from 2.3 million $ to 800,000$ because they are expecting only 1.15 million $ in revenue.The cost of implementing DRS is 60,000 $ per game and even if they implement it just for the test series, that alone is around 15% of their revenue and this is Aus, the only country SL has some kinda enmity against. Most boards are bankrupt as it is. Would they really implement this? Having said that India not agreeing when the other boards are willing esp since the other boards are the one to pay, says something else is going on. Why is the BCCI so concerned about the costs if WI is picking up the tab?

About the first part, yes. I read about the SL cost cutting measures. Kinda bad, coz they hardly make any money per se. As for the 2nd part, BCCI has the S & D factors which are stopping them from implementing the UDRS. Thankfully the ICC has implemented UDRS universally now.

[Zap_Brannigan]

About the first part, yes. I read about the SL cost cutting measures. Kinda bad, coz they hardly make any money per se. As for the 2nd part, BCCI has the S & D factors which are stopping them from implementing the UDRS. Thankfully the ICC has implemented UDRS universally now.

Niranjan shah lied/got his information wrong. Now ICC is saying thats its just 5000$ per day. It is still a lot for an entire test series for the likes of SL, BD, WI and Pak but I dont think its big enough to be a concern for ICC to implement it from their pockets.

[mishra]

Indian cricket plots control of world game Sharad Pawar, the former head of the BCCI, is the ICC president but under the present regulations, an Indian could not succeed him.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: what did everyone including BCCI / ICC expected? He will not leave till death... Neutrals.... Please dont blame BCCI or India...

[maniac]

Scyld Berry sounds like an energy drink Flavor. Sour Grapes from Berry.Firstly, what are his credentials as a journalist.The only reason his role as a Cricket correspondent is even relevant is because of of the status cricket enjoys in India.

[Vijay.Sharma]

Niranjan shah lied/got his information wrong. Now ICC is saying thats its just 5000$ per day. It is still a lot for an entire test series for the likes of SL' date= BD, WI and Pak but I dont think its big enough to be a concern for ICC to implement it from their pockets. Some others here at ICF who also visit RSC can confirm it as well. HS have now made a new tech with 4 cameras and he says their initial tests are showing good improvement. Hence they will be using 4 cameras instead of 2 earlier. So, basically the figure of 5K, actually 6K as per Warren, is for a 2 camera set up. Whereas BCCI being keen on HS will in all likelihood go with a 4 camera set up which would cost 10K.

That's not correct. When Niranjan Shah said that per day cost of Hot spot is 10k USD, he was absolutely right. How do I know this? On RSC, this guy by name Warren who owns Hot Spot himself told us what the cost of Hot Spot is. Quoting him -

[Cricket Tragic]

What's RSC?

[gult]

Hahaha.. English players not supporting inclusion of minnows? Not surprising considering their recent horrible performances vs minnows.

[achilles]

While we are discussing how India is being a wimp, why not discuss England! Why is England hell-bent on destroying Zimbabwe cricket? Why is the Indian Cricket Council silent about this? How does this align with their nefarious goals of global domination and the witchery plots they come up with? :hitler: C'mon Berry, give me answers! :hitler:

[jairamesh]

While we are discussing how India is being a wimp, why not discuss England! Why is England hell-bent on destroying Zimbabwe cricket? Why is the Indian Cricket Council silent about this? How does this align with their nefarious goals of global domination and the witchery plots they come up with? :hitler: C'mon Berry, give me answers! :hitler:

so England can secure their supply of white southern african raised cricketers to replace their talentless coaches and players.

[achilles]

so England can secure their supply of white southern african raised cricketers to replace their talentless coaches and players.

Even their coaching staff is not British :hitler:

[Karan114]

Berry should read this from Paul Collingwood:

At the recent Wisden dinner, there was a discussion about whether India's strong influence on the game was a threat to cricket, and Test cricket in particular. What do you think? I don't think that's the case at all. Actually, I think it might be the other way around. Look, when I was a kid, all I wanted to do was play professional football. As it happened, I wasn't good enough to do that. But if I'd had the choice, I probably would have been a footballer before a cricketer. Why? Well, I looked at the rewards on offer for a life in either sport and football won hands down. There was just far more money on offer in football. And that's a huge draw, whether people like it or not. The riches on offer in the IPL make it more likely that kids will choose cricket instead of football. The excitement and glamour will drive up the participation numbers, and as far as I'm concerned, Twenty20 cricket has improved skill levels right across the game. I really believe that. The game has improved in the last eight years since Twenty20 was introduced, and I think it will go on improving. I know that I had to become much cleverer as a bowler and a lot more powerful as a batsman. We've all had to improve. For me, Test cricket will always remain the ultimate test of a player, but so long as we don't take anything from the traditions of the game, I can't see why the Indian influence should be interpreted negatively.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/520931.html